How can systems reporting on AHCC be improved? And how can mechanisms and practices used in the Syrian conflict help improve the international approach to reporting AHCC?
Based on an analysis of various mechanisms that have operated in the Syrian conflict, this study aims to answer the following questions: How can systems reporting on AHCC be improved? How did these mechanisms perform? What differences exist between them, and what are the lessons learned? And, how do the mechanisms for reporting used in Syria compare to the reporting commitments under IHL and related international agreements?
To address these questions, this paper centres around a review and analysis of data and methods from the most prominent reporting mechanisms. It focuses on the following areas of concern: types of collected data, contextualization of data, inclusion of various stakeholders in each mechanism, the utility of the data, and the impact reporting has had on the response to AHCC. The study offers as background an overview of the most widely known reporting mechanism for AHCC globally – WHO’s SSA – and some context on AHCC in Syria. Based on an exploration of reporting practices in Syria in relation to requirements in international agreements, this paper makes recommendations for improving documentation of AHCC in the future.
The study used qualitative methodological approaches. A literature review of grey and peer-reviewed literature (including NGO publications and news agency sources) was conducted to assess available knowledge on AHCC both globally and in the Syrian context, to identify the most relevant involved stakeholders for interview, and to compile data points for comparing AHCC reporting mechanisms in Syria.
Three types of formal semi-structured interviews were conducted between March and August 2018: interviews with 13 academic and policy experts working on this issue globally; interviews with 13 field actors involved in reporting AHCC in Syria; and five interviews with policymakers at WHO, the ICRC and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). In addition to the interviews, a structured workshop was conducted in June 2018 in Gaziantep, in southern Turkey, with the participation of 30 representatives of actors (mainly in the field of health) that were involved in the cross-border health response in northwest Syria. Interviewees were selected to ensure representation of different types of actors involved in reporting AHCC. Interview data were analysed inductively using a grounded theory, which process stopped when saturation was reached.
The study did not undergo an ethical review process before the interviews. However, ethical considerations were taken into account when designing the interview grid and in analysing the data, ensuring no risk was being introduced to the interviewees and the participants. Consent forms were signed by interviewees prior to the interviews, and the 2018 General Data Protection Regulations were followed.
